Archaeopteryx said:
You are overstating the evidence in your favour. Indeed, on a closer examination, much of the evidence you provided was decidedly not in your favour. The Wikipedia article, for instance, acknowledged the nomenclature that most atheists in this thread use.
Wikipedia stated that in both the strict and broad sense, the meaning of atheism is what I have repeatedly said. It stated that in the most inclusive sense, it can mean anyone without a belief in a god. It then cited people who make that argument. That it is not accepted in the strict or broad sense, and only is accepted in a most inclusive manner posited by only some,
does not indicate that it is normal nomenclature. I have also repeatedly stated that using it in that sense is damaging to the vocabulary because it extends atheism out to meaning something less specific and meaningful, and it then encompasses agnosticism so that the word "agnostic" is swallowed up by the term "atheism." The author of the word "agnostic" invented the term specifically to label himself
neither theist
nor atheist.
Really, I wish some of you would step back, not care about who is right or wrong, and consider that part of the argument about these terms.
Yes, you've repeatedly discussed that, but then you've lapsed back into thinking in terms of strict categories, hence the fact that you are continually perplexed at the way many atheists describe themselves.
I have not, and you are not providing evidence of this. You can readily quote places where I have said things which demonstrate this behavior.
Eudaimonist said:
ANY OF YOUR POSTS WHERE YOU DEFINE "ATHEIST".
You choose definitions far more restrictive than what I have posted.
I have had enough of these games of yours. I'm unsubscribing from this thread.
Some of my posts where I define "atheist" are copied and pasted from the dictionary, in full, completely. It is not a game to look up what a word means in the two most-used, online dictionaries and post it in full.
It is not defeat to learn the more precise meaning of terms and adapt your language. I do it all the time and would have done it here had the other side been more compelling. It is a sign of maturity and intellectual integrity to care more about being accurate than to care about being correct. Consider that science is the only field out there in which you are lauded for proving yourself wrong! In fact, had the other side presented a stronger case, I would have
enjoyed changing my opinion because I would have learned something profoundly impacting. I have still learned things from this debate, but I am left believing that the terms theism, atheism, and agnosticism are as I viewed them before. This debate has strengthened my understanding of the terms.
Just to re-say what my fellow atheists have already said:
A person who who takes no position is an atheist because that person lacks belief in a god.
Consider the question of odd and even stars.
If you ask someone whether the number of stars is odd and they respond that they don't know, then they are an a-oddist. It does not matter that they are also an a-evenist; they are still an a-oddist.
They are not an a-oddist, because they are not ruling the odd number out. They are neither pro, nor anti, they are neutral. An agnostic does not decide against either the theist nor atheist position, they are skeptical of both yet willing to accept either given persuasive evidence. To be both anti-theism and anti-atheism, there would need to be a third option; there isn't. If you ask me which cord goes in which of two sockets, and I reply "I don't know," I am not against either option, I'm simply open to either if we can figure it out.
This is similar to being an a-yahweh-ist. It does not follow that an a-yahweh-ist is an a-zeus-ist.
However, if the question is whether any god exists then someone who answers "I don't know" lacks belief in any gods. She is an a-godist, an atheist. In this case, it does follow that she cannot also be an a-atheist, a theist. Because, barring cognitive dissonance, one cannot hold both A and not A.
The inventor of the term "agnostic" specifically invented the word to clarify that he neither accepted theism nor atheism because he could be sure of neither. Both were gnostic positions. The idea that atheism encompasses agnosticism is the antithesis of what he was trying to communicate with the word.
KCfromNC said:
But they still know if they have or lack belief, regardless of the reasons behind them. Your example was of someone who believed they didn't actually know if they believed or not, which as I said, is inherently contradictory.
I think we miscommunicated. I never intended to give an example of someone who believed they didn't know if they believed or not... I intended to give an example of someone who felt they lacked the necessary evidence to make a determination.
Easy enough :
Originally Posted by BlueLightningTN View Post
Atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
-- Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com
Atheism
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity
-- Atheism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Theism is the belief of the divine, atheism is the disbelief in the divine, agnosticism is the lack of belief either way.
What's the difference between disbelief and lack of belief again? They mean the same thing as far as I can see, so I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make here.
Both of those examples are for atheism - two words in two definitions from two resources for the same word.
Disbelief is a gnostic position that a belief is untrue. Lack of belief is an agnostic position that makes no determination as the truth or untruth of the belief, but rather regards it as inconclusive.
